E=mc^2

[indio007]

Clocks are oscillators even atomic clocks.

Basically some object travels back and forth between 2 points in space say A and B
One traversal of space from A to B and back to A is made the unit of time.

Now lets take the path from A to B.
Put point A lower in a gravitational potential than point B (parallel to the direction of force).
Let the oscillator go.

The motion from A to B is going to slow because it is experiencing a decelerating gravity force.

B to A transit will be faster because of an accelerating gravity force.

Rotate the oscillation path 90 degrees and the oscillation time will change.

Now lets start moving and rotating this oscillator around in the gravity field that falls off at the square of the distance perpendicular to a curved sphere.

The unit of time which is a derivative of the A to B - B to A motion will keep
changing.

The only way for A to B motion and the B to A motion to experience an equal force across the entire path of motion is thus,

A path of motion in which the gravitational force is always equal.

For a spherical object of uniform density, that path curved.
The path is always perpendicular to the gradient of force.

To put is simply.

The PATH (A-B and B-A) of the oscillator MUST stay at a constant height above the surface of the sphere.

The surface of a sphere is curved so a constant height is curved.

Like a said good luck finding a oscillator the follows a curved path parallel to the surface of a sphere.

The dashed line in the image is a Gaussian sphere. The gravitational force across the surface of the imaginary sphere is uniform according to Newton.
This is because force falls of linear with distance i.e. inverse square law.


Relativity on the other hand is non-linear. A uniform path within the field can not be computed because initial values of 2 masses (their mass and field strength) can not computed.

[BroMikey]

intellect is a wonder

No matter how much evidence I present for my unified field or against the standard models of gravity and E/M, my critics prefer to ignore everything I have said up to now and concentrate on things I haven’t yet discussed. Physics is such a huge field that they feel confident in their ability to misdirect the argument forever. In this, they are probably right. As long as they want to run, they can keep finding new places to hide. But they miscalculate in one important way: every new hiding place they find gives me another chance to exhibit my targeting systems. With each new round in the game, my weaponry is made to look more and more formidable, and their caves are made to look less and less sheltering. Always they must search for deeper and darker dwellings.

Gravitational lensing is another of these shallow caves. Although lensing has been around as a theory since Chwolson’s mention of it in 1924, it wasn’t “confirmed” until 1979, with the so-called Twin Quasar Q0957+561. The Twin Quasar has many problems as the proposed effect of a gravitational lens, beginning with the fact that no one knows what a quasar is. This “quasar” has a redshift of 1.41, which, following standard procedure, would put it at about 8.7 billion lightyears. But that is assuming this quasar has no velocity relative to universal expansion, which is a very big assumption. This means that the real distance of the lensed object is unknown.

The lensing galaxy has the same problem. It is said to be about 3.7 billion lightyears away, but that distance is just as theoretical. We don’t know the local velocity of the galaxy. But even if we did, our ability to measure at that distance is poor. Our ability to measure within our own galaxy is poor, as astronomers were forced to admit in 2006. when mainstream news sources dropped the bomb that we were off at least 15% in ALL distance measurements. If we were 15% wrong about nearby objects--objects about which we know much more--then these distance estimates at billions of lightyears must be taken with a grain of salt.

All this is very important, because it means that gravitational lenses aren’t offered as proof of light bending by gravity, they are offered as possible examples of bending. To stand as any sort of proof, we would have to have some math. But without distances, you can’t have math. We are never told what the gravitational forces are, because we have no idea.

The standard model of lensing wants us to believe that very imperfect lenses could focus light from that distance here upon the Earth. Two beams of light are focused, but each beam is bent a different amount. Anyone who knows anything about lenses knows that is highly unlikely.

Clearly, then, this twin quasar is a poor candidate for a lens, and we should be surprised that the standard model of lensing leads with it. I would say that the inverse square law is fatal to it, since we shouldn’t expect more bending at a greater distance.

Even more fatal to it is that this distance analysis reveals a peculiar outcome of gravitational bending. According to the theory, there should be a distance beyond every edge of every galaxy and every star where the light behind is bent just the right amount to reach us here on Earth. All objects that we can see have other objects behind them. Every star we see has stars and/or galaxies behind it, and many objects we see are eclipsing objects of considerable brightness. If bending and lensing were true, we would expect every single object in the sky to be fully haloed. No, more than that: we should expect the entire sky to be filled with bent light.

Every object we see has an object behind it or near it, and every object has a distance of bending beyond every edge where the angle would be right to bend the light to us. Therefore the night sky should be filled from corner to corner with multiple images. According to the theory of light bending, there shouldn’t be a dark dot in the sky.

We can see this just by looking again at the Twin Quasar. As the light from the quasar filters through all those galaxies in the cluster, as well as through the globular clusters between, it will be bent in an infinite number of ways. Each distance from each galaxy or cluster causes a different bend, which then gets rebent by the next galaxy or cluster. Before long the image should be completely randomized, so that we see not a quasar or two quasars, but a giant patch of diffuse light. There is simply no way to explain the fairly discrete images we see given the theory of bending.

You can see that astronomers have been unbelievably sloppy in their presentation of the Twin Quasar as a candidate for bending. They have put it forward as proof of General Relativity, when in fact it is proof of nothing. If anything, it is proof against the current interpretation of GR, and of curved space.

Einstein’s cross, another famous candidate, is equally weak. Here you can see four distinct images, all said to be the same quasar.

Einstein’s Cross flagrantly contradicts the fundamental theory in many places.

It might be called folly to try to explain four unequal images as the result of lensing. When those images vary from year to year, it is even more foolish. When those images are stretched radially, the whole effort becomes a farce.

While I am not agreeing with Arp that these four quasars have been ejected from this galaxy, I do think he and others have found many fatal flaws to the lensing hypothesis. Every time anyone takes a close look at the theory and at the offered examples, they discover that the numbers don’t add up.

The truth is, the lensing hypothesis has no strong proof. It doesn’t even have circumstantial evidence that looks convincing, as I have shown. Prima facie, the hypothesis is weak, and the more one studies the examples, the weaker it gets. The theory is never defended in a cogent manner, it is simply asserted, and all anomalies are ignored. The Twin Quasar and Einstein’s Cross are not strong examples, but every page on gravitational lensing leads with them. This is itself a tip-off, for if stronger examples existed, we would not need to hear of the weak examples. Critiques, in the few instances they pop up, are also ignored or suppressed, as we have seen with Halton Arp. This is how the standard model operates, on all questions. There is no possible defense of its nebulous hypotheses, so its only hope is to reject announcements and papers, to browbeat anyone who sits still for a moment, and to pre-empt discussion by a constant professional patter of propaganda.

Even before I showed the logical inconsistencies of the theory of lensing, it was much more likely and plausible that rings and arcs and multiple images were caused by refraction than by gravitational bending. Astronomers assigned the phenomena to gravity only because they were already in search of such “proofs.” They needed the bending to be caused by gravity, so they ignored the more likely explanations. As in so many other instances, they let the theory determine the data. Instead of having data, and then developing a theory to contain it, they had a theory, and then went in search of data to support it. The science of the hysteron proteron.

Read more: Against Gravitational Lensing

1 000 000 $ award for guy who reasonably and sanely explain possible reason for Full Moon (in next picture) illumination using main stream arguments: http://www.pxleyes.com/images/contes...56c5_hires.jpg

Don't forget: Moon is supposedly 500 times closer to Earth than Sun!

How to catch two objects (positioned 180 degree to each other) in the same frame (if they are not positioned even closely to 180 degree to each other than how come there is Full Moon at next picture):
http://zaslike.com/files/sq5pkqpbl7py7bo52mxu.jpg

Great stuff

That's what I like, talk to us like we are adults. Not like the the Pablo, Milk Toast feeding frenzy we see in our media and thus universities.

Just the facts

Michael

[Aaron]

aetheric density

Light is a wave in the ether, light always travels through the ether. Ether, being incompressible always has the same density...

It only appears to be the same density to YOUR own local perception of it since you are subject to the density of the aether you are examining.

To the other comments about the standard definition of energy and the one I am stating that is consistent with the definition of joule, the only way the standard definition of energy is correct is in the world of newspeak where war is peace and peace is war because anyone that believes that energy = potential energy is seeing a number of fingers being held up that is completely different from what is actually there.

Everyone can choose to believe an inconsistency or something that is consistent - it really is very simple.

[Ben2503]

frequency=1/T

Clocks are oscillators even atomic clocks.

Basically some object travels back and forth between 2 points in space say A and B
One traversal of space from A to B and back to A is made the unit of time.

Now lets take the path from A to B.
Put point A lower in a gravitational potential than point B (parallel to the direction of force).
Let the oscillator go.

The motion from A to B is going to slow because it is experiencing a decelerating gravity force.

B to A transit will be faster because of an accelerating gravity force.

Rotate the oscillation path 90 degrees and the oscillation time will change.

Now lets start moving and rotating this oscillator around in the gravity field that falls off at the square of the distance perpendicular to a curved sphere.

The unit of time which is a derivative of the A to B - B to A motion will keep
changing.

The only way for A to B motion and the B to A motion to experience an equal force across the entire path of motion is thus,

A path of motion in which the gravitational force is always equal.

For a spherical object of uniform density, that path curved.
The path is always perpendicular to the gradient of force.

To put is simply.

The PATH (A-B and B-A) of the oscillator MUST stay at a constant height above the surface of the sphere.

The surface of a sphere is curved so a constant height is curved.

Like a said good luck finding a oscillator the follows a curved path parallel to the surface of a sphere.

The dashed line in the image is a Gaussian sphere. The gravitational force across the surface of the imaginary sphere is uniform according to Newton.
This is because force falls of linear with distance i.e. inverse square law.


Relativity on the other hand is non-linear. A uniform path within the field can not be computed because initial values of 2 masses (their mass and field strength) can not computed.

The theory is very clear to me now.
What still puzzles me is:
does this affect the frequency of the oscillation or just the symmetry?
does gravity also affect the frequency emitted when electrons transit in the atoms?
are there reasons to believe that electrons orbit their nucleus in an elliptical path?

[Allcanadian]

@cikljamas

1 000 000 $ award for guy who reasonably and sanely explain possible reason for Full Moon (in next picture) illumination using main stream arguments: http://www.pxleyes.com/images/contes...56c5_hires.jpg

Don't forget: Moon is supposedly 500 times closer to Earth than Sun!

The Sun which is low on the horizon has illuminated the whole of the Earth we cannot see and the light reflected from the Earth has in turn illuminated the moon high on the horizon. Imagine your standing on the surface of a mirror looking upward and the solution becomes much more obvious.

@indio007

Clocks are oscillators even atomic clocks.

I would agree and never could quite take the blind leap of faith that time might be variable. Now which seems more plausible, the rate at which time passes has changed or the rate at which we measure time has changed implying our clocks have changed in some way. It would seem to me our scientific method is not very scientific in many cases requiring an absolute faith in our ability to measure phenomena and believe the measure without question. Personally I believe the majority are pseudo-scientists leaving no room for doubt while the real scientists must always question everything by their nature.

AC

[indio007]

@indio007


I would agree and never could quite take the blind leap of faith that time might be variable.

AC

I didn't say time was variable. The measurement of time is variable. The motion of the oscillator is variable if the forces exerted on it are variable. This will make time appear variable is one assumes the motion of an oscillator is uniform. It's not uniform in the gravity field of a sphere except in the special case I mentioned. The special case doesn't exist in reality. I don't think it can even be created experimentally.



Einstein and his followers ignore the flaw in the measurement method of time then declare time is variable.

[Ernst]

The GPS example is a bit complicated. A bit more and in a different manner than what I am reading here. Instead of explaining the whole lot, let me give you a much easier experiment that has been done to prove time dilatation.

I forgot which particles were used in this experiment, so let me just call them particles.
At great height above sea level the number of particles (near light speed) received from space is measured for a fixed time period.
The same is done at sea level.
Since we know the time it takes for half of this number to decay (half-life) under laboratory conditions, that is at relatively low speeds, we can calculate what percentage would arrive at sea-level, assuming their time = our time.
The actual measured value turned out to be much larger and match the predicted value if you take time dilatation into account.

I mentioned earlier that Robert Distinti https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sUe...nhhTicspymWThP is doing a great series on ether mechanics, which even I can understand.

I have seen up to part 22 or 23. And I have noticed a number of errors but still the video's are quite interesting indeed.

I watched all your utube videos and really enjoyed them.

Thanks!

The last two are too dark to really see the effects.

I have tries many things to improve those videos, but the problem seems to be with the quality of my camera (optical resolution).

I didn't quite grasp how you arrive at the conclusion that the movements of the surface are caused by the ether. Please enlighten me.

I think that no matter how you want to view electricity, it HAS something to do with the ether. A highly charged capacitor therefor has a certain ether condition which differs from a un-charged capacitor. By causing an extremely quick change between these two conditions we must produce some effect in the surrounding ether.
The capacitor is surrounded by insulators which do not easily convey ether-action so if we hold a metal rod (conductor) near the surface, we are facilitating the transfer of ether-action towards the capacitor. Thus at the tip of the metal rod this transfer is much denser than elsewhere on the oil surface.
Ether is not dense enough to "push" visibly on the oil surface, but air is. And the air is dragged along with the ether movement, causing a small dent in the oil surface when the capacitor discharges.
I have done many variations of this experiment in order to convince myself. Many different rods, conducting and non-conducting, without rods, with the rods at different positions etc.
This experiment is to the layman the least interesting of all my experiments, but if you understand the implications, this is by far the most fascinating experiment.
It is in fact an experiment copied (and slightly altered) from... you guessed right... Tesla.
Tesla used a submerged coil, but I thought a capacitor is much more interesting and I am sure Tesla must have done the same, but decided not to write about it.
because... (you fill in the blanks)

Ernst.

[Allcanadian]

@indio007

I didn't say time was variable. The measurement of time is variable. The motion of the oscillator is variable if the forces exerted on it are variable. This will make time appear variable is one assumes the motion of an oscillator is uniform. It's not uniform in the gravity field of a sphere except in the special case I mentioned. The special case doesn't exist in reality. I don't think it can even be created experimentally.

Yes my statement was confusing, I do agree with you however I have a bad habit of commenting on where the conversation is inevitably going versus where it is at the moment. I didn't mean to imply you thought time was variable.

@Ernst
I believe you are referring to this experiment.

Rossi and Hall (1941) compared the population of cosmic-ray-produced muons at the top of a mountain to that observed at sea level. Although the travel time for the muons from the top of the mountain to the base is several muon half-lives, the muon sample at the base was only moderately reduced. This is explained by the time dilation attributed to their high speed relative to the experimenters. That is to say, the muons were decaying about 10 times slower than if they were at rest with respect to the experimenters.

Now can anyone spot the problem here?, that is comparing the half-life of a muon at rest in a lab to a muon travelling near the speed of light on a mountain top and at sea level. This is what I refer to pseudo-science where they pick and choose phenomena they obviously do not understand to substantiate other phenomena they obviously do not understand built on a faulty premise.

I'm not sure if anyone has connected the dots but can anyone take a guess as to why nobody seems to know what the primary fields E,B,G are fundamentally?. Not what they do but what they are fundamentally and why nobody seems to even have a clue where to start. It took me a lifetime to nail it all down and I can tell you these people are chasing smoke and mirrors just as our ancestors have thoughout history.

Consider this, there is no time dilation it is a field effect and lo and behold nobody seems to know what a field is fundamentally hence the confusion. Now suppose a particle at high velocity has different properties than a particle at rest not related to such nonsense as time dilation but external field interactions. At which point it becomes painfully obvious that if a particle at rest was imparted with field properties identical to a particle at high velocity then we might see changes in decay rate, changes in weight mistaken as a change in mass or changes in inertia. Nobody wants to go there, lol, I can hardly blame them and ignorance is truly bliss while understanding weighs heavy on the soul.

AC

[indio007]

Ron Hatch on GPS and Relativity

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGZ1GU_HDwY

if anyone prefers reading

http://ivanik3.narod.ru/GPS/Hatch/relGPS.pdf

[cikljamas]

I would agree and never could quite take the blind leap of faith that time might be variable. Now which seems more plausible, the rate at which time passes has changed or the rate at which we measure time has changed implying our clocks have changed in some way.

1. The more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa. (Heisenberg's uncertainty principle)

2. Experiments have shown that the mass of the photon must be very small if it is not zero. Any such possible photon rest mass is certainly too small to have any practical significance for the definition of the metre in the foreseeable future, but it cannot be shown to be exactly zero—even though currently accepted theories indicate that it is. If it wasn't zero, the speed of light would not be constant; but from a theoretical point of view we would then take c to be the upper limit of the speed of light in vacuum so that we can continue to ask whether c is constant.

Conclusion: As you get closer to the speed of light your mass also have to get closer to zero. It would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate your body to the speed of light. This is similar to saying that you can count as high as you like, but you will never get to infinity.

But, the hardest question is WHAT IS THE TRUE NATURE OF TIME?
According to Einstein, there is no Time as independent (of space) quality-variable:

So while 4D spacetime is usually considered to consist of three dimensions of space and one dimension of time, the researchers’ view suggests that it’s more correct to imagine spacetime as four dimensions of space. In other words, as they say, the universe is “timeless.”

Read more at: Scientists suggest spacetime has no time dimension

“ Where did we get that (equation) from? Nowhere. It is not possible to derive it from anything you know. It came out of the mind of Schrödinger. ”—Richard Feynman

Schrödinger equation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It would seem to me our scientific method is not very scientific in many cases requiring an absolute faith in our ability to measure phenomena and believe the measure without question. Personally I believe the majority are pseudo-scientists leaving no room for doubt while the real scientists must always question everything by their nature.

So, you are ready for questioning?

@cikljamas,
The Sun which is low on the horizon has illuminated the whole of the Earth we cannot see and the light reflected from the Earth has in turn illuminated the moon high on the horizon. Imagine your standing on the surface of a mirror looking upward and the solution becomes much more obvious.

Question this: http://www.zaslike.com/files/bkns9zgj088i0snnz0x.jpg

To illuminate Moon like this (lower part of the Moon) Sun has to be behind us (which is impossible) or between Earth and Moon (which is also utterly impossible according to main stream theory, because Sun is 500 times farther from us then Moon is). So, where is the Sun (concerning supposed constellation of heavenly bodies) in this picture?

In this similar case http://zaslike.com/files/56q9h77mm39wpv9ulgr.jpg ... Sun could have been behind us but what than has been the source of illumination of upper half of the Moon and how? Reflection of Sunlight that have come from the Earth??? Come on...

This is very interesting picture: http://www.zaslike.com/files/yqx06cocmi5chdtczt.jpg

According to the intensity of Moonlight, this particular Full Moon had to be result of illumination caused by Sunlight (not the light reflected from the Earth), but the angle of Sun rays was 90 degree, not 180 degree as it should have been, so how we have gotten Full Moon illumination in this picture?

http://www.zaslike.com/files/xcwfvpga93gja274q2vl.jpg
http://www.zaslike.com/files/c3yjakeovqy5ta098op.jpg

Utterly impossible lunar eclipse by insane main stream science logic, according which shadow (in the upper half of the Moon) should have been caused by Earth's interception of Sunlight : http://www.zaslike.com/files/gbzllbyf3pezq1k97ezy.jpg

http://www.zaslike.com/files/gyx1ukg8a5knvtd8o2d.jpg
http://www.zaslike.com/files/y6kurm4zrflb2bvv78ca.jpg
http://www.zaslike.com/files/omqja1wb20p9x6hszit.jpg

Such a world wide mockery of human sanity is just beyond me...

[Allcanadian]

@cikljamas

1 000 000 $ award for guy who reasonably and sanely explain possible reason for Full Moon (in next picture) illumination using main stream arguments: http://www.pxleyes.com/images/contes...56c5_hires.jpg

Don't forget: Moon is supposedly 500 times closer to Earth than Sun!

Lol, I'm not sure how I missed the even more obvious answer, note the full link title.

http://www.pxleyes.com/images/contes...56c5_hires.jpg

pxleyes.com/images/contests/double-exposure/fullsize/Moon-and-Sun
The key words here are double exposure.

I don't mean to rub it in but consider your actions. You were willing to bet a million dollars that image was in contradiction to science and probably spent time proving by calculation it defied physics to prove your point. This is everything that is wrong with modern science in my opinion, we should not be trying to prove we are right we should be trying to find the truth. We should not be trying to make things work from our narrow perspective we should be trying to understand how nature works.

AC

[cikljamas]

@cikljamas


Lol, I'm not sure how I missed the even more obvious answer, note the full link title.

http://www.pxleyes.com/images/contes...56c5_hires.jpg

pxleyes.com/images/contests/double-exposure/fullsize/Moon-and-Sun
The key words here are double exposure.

I don't mean to rub it in but consider your actions. You were willing to bet a million dollars that image was in contradiction to science and probably spent time proving by calculation it defied physics to prove your point. This is everything that is wrong with modern science in my opinion, we should not be trying to prove we are right we should be trying to find the truth. We should not be trying to make things work from our narrow perspective we should be trying to understand how nature works.

AC

I have noticed that too yesterday, it had been kind of disappointment for me because in order to confirm my Flat Earth-Geocentric Theory i have guessed that i have to be able to find at least few more pictures like this (not double exposed one), and i have found them indeed:

Full Moon and Sun - same side of Earth:
http://www.zaslike.com/files/n3jd58guwnj0m9ym81p3.jpg
http://www.zaslike.com/files/8hcbtpe7jebm9c03w546.jpg
http://www.zaslike.com/files/x24sgeg76osfczxxwwwu.jpg
http://www.zaslike.com/files/1f4qesfxbjh3orxv7f5q.jpg
http://zaslike.com/files/brhj1egosnhyahmnb6dg.jpg
http://www.zaslike.com/files/u2dr44l1jnfer2vmgbhr.jpg

Full Moon and Sun - positioned 90 degrees to each other:
http://www.zaslike.com/files/yqx06cocmi5chdtczt.jpg

In last post i have put whole bunch of different difficult questions (for you) and also whole bunch of strong arguments against sustainable reasonableness of assuming existence (according main stream theory) of required constellations of the Sun, Moon and Earth inducing such appearances-effects which are seeable in pictures that i have presented in few recent posts of mine (including this one).

You have not answered to single one question nor you commented my strong arguments, all you have done is noticing double exposure. But it hasn't guaranteed 1 000 000 $ because same or very similar constellations of the Sun, Moon and Earth has been demonstrated in above pictures too!

Science progress is not so cheap as you assume it is...

I will repeat your own words: we should be trying to understand how nature works!!!

If this was your best try then i am very disappointed. I am sure you can better than that!

Look at this one: Image Viewer

It's day on Earth, it means Sun is on the horizon, and the upper half of the Moon is eclipsed, explain this if you can!!! It is impossible, but you have to have enough courage to admit it to yourself! That is the hardest part, i know!

[Allcanadian]

@cikljamas

You have not answered to single one question nor you commented my strong arguments, all you have done is noticing double exposure. But it hasn't guaranteed 1 000 000 $ because same or very similar constellations of the Sun, Moon and Earth has been demonstrated in above pictures too!

I would note your initial statement in which you specifically refer to the " in next picture" as to whether you are a man of your word ... or not.

1 000 000 $ award for guy who reasonably and sanely explain possible reason for Full Moon (in next picture) illumination using main stream arguments: http://www.pxleyes.com/images/contes...56c5_hires.jpg
Don't forget: Moon is supposedly 500 times closer to Earth than Sun!

Obviously you have no intent to pay this sum nor do I have any intent of taking it however in my opinion your response goes a long way towards character. As such I have no interest in continuing this debate as I already know the outcome. I would suggest we try to stay on topic.

AC

[cikljamas]

@cikljamas
I would note your initial statement in which you specifically refer to the " in next picture" as to whether you are a man of your word ... or not.

So you think that the words contained in my initial statement ("in next picture") are the crucial part of the story? I could agree with you but only assuming my hypothetical inability in providing you expeditiously and promptly another cluster of practically identical (regarding essential part of our discussion) photographs. Since i did provide you adequate replacement for double exposure photograph it should be accepted as 100 % equivalent substitution. But if you considered this 1 000 000 $ award as kind of officially-legally verified wager than you could continue to stick with my initial statement ("in next picture")... I mean i wouldn't trick you like Edison did trick Tesla refusing to pay him off 50 000 $, anyway...But Tesla really did work very hard to earn that 50 000 $ promised him by Edison and Tesla earned them 100 % but he didn't get them anyway, thanks to lacking sense for american humor as Edison elegantly explained...

Obviously you have no intent to pay this sum nor do I have any intent of taking it however in my opinion your response goes a long way towards character. As such I have no interest in continuing this debate as I already know the outcome. I would suggest we try to stay on topic.

Well, you think that if the Earth's surface were flat indeed, and if Moon were self luminous body, and if Sun were about 10 000 miles away from the Earth instead of 150 000 000 km, and if Sun and Moon would circle above and around us instead of around round planet Earth, and if Stars and Galaxies were also much, much, much closer and much, much, much smaller than they are supposed to be according main stream insane science, you really think that in such hypothetical scenario all these radically different variables would not make any critical difference-influence in every possible way concerning every possible aspect of modern physics?

Not sure about true meaning of the phrase "goes a long way towards character", but never mind, i can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing...


“I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong. If we will only allow that, as we progress, we remain unsure, we will leave opportunities for alternatives. We will not become enthusiastic for the fact, the knowledge, the absolute truth of the day, but remain always uncertain … In order to make progress, one must leave the door to the unknown ajar.” Richard P. Feynman

[Ernst]

1 000 000 $ award for guy who reasonably and sanely explain possible reason for Full Moon (in next picture) illumination using main stream arguments: http://www.pxleyes.com/images/contes...56c5_hires.jpg

I have an even more amazing picture.
How would you explain this?

or this?
also amazing!
real first man on the moon.
astronaut food.
truly amazing!
Do you know where the moon is during the day?
right here!


The world is full with mysteries!

Ernst.